WASHINGTON - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were officially on a diplomatic track regarding Iraq in January 2003, but a secret memo now reveals they were determined to go to war six weeks before invading.

The title and opening statement were direct copies of the story you posted. If NBC is being unbiased (difficult for any media but I'll try to give anyone the benefit of doubt) then it doesn't really convey meaning or start a discussion.

Also, as far as my so called bias for editing the link. I searched board and found this from 2003. There were also other examples of the same request. This board limits me from making this message a "sticky" that would stay at the top. I am looking at replacing it with either a newer version or a whole new system that should add some new features. I just haven't had time between my main job, working on updates to this site and trying to have some fun too.

It has been a long standing request that people post a link to the story and then post comments or an opinion (rather than just posting the story). Others have pointed it out when I haven't...

I also found out the search wasn't working. The problem has been corrected now.

Yawn. Some wars were started for really good reasons and much of the popular thinking of those different times was completely against them and more than a few thought the idea of violent engagement in each one was positively ludicrous. Many also thought starting them or being involved in them was inhumane.

Four very good examples: 1. The US revolutionary war. 2. The Civil War. 3. WWI 4. WWII (I find it rather telling that it took Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor to get the US involved in the first place. Were there perhaps too many peace protesters in that time period?)

So the 'pre-emptive attack' on Iraq and the miserable failure of the smirking chimp's policies is a good thing and any opposition to him/it is a bad thing? Brilliant! Mission Accomplished! By the way, which of those wars you listed were started by the United States and what were the very good reasons the United States had for starting them?

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Let's see, in addition to what Kerry said there was a necessity in many situations during the Rev War to resort to what we used to know as "guerilla warfare", now known as "terrorist attacks", because the colonists were outnumbered and initially at a disadvantage. King George did not start the Revolutionary War, the US did, and for some very good reasons--taxation without representation being a good one, not to mention being forced to provide room and board for often rude British garrisons without being asked, and certainly we cannot ignore the inability of Colonists to run trials and jail criminals, which King George often refused to have prosecuted in England--just to name a FEW good reasons.

And by your tone it seems you almost think it was wrong that WWI and II took place in the first place (or that it certainly would have been taboo for the US to start WWII!)...Let's see, I think Hitler's slaughtering of Jews and others and threatening to conquer all of Europe and imposing weird and strange human management policies on as much of the world as possible was a really great reason for the rest of the world to make war with him.

I'm still waiting to see how you will tie in your 'very good examples' with the current war in Iraq. If you will slowly read the first entry you may notice that the war in Iraq is the subject of the thread. There is a BIG difference between fighting wars to preserve our freedom and our future (or those of our allies) versus arbitrarily starting a war for reasons that change almost weekly.

And by your tone it seems you almost think it was wrong that WWI and II took place in the first place

I hope you didn't tear a hamstring jumping to that looney conclusion.

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Perhaps you don't believe any of the bad things Saddam Hussein was said to have done to his own people, either. That's why we have done nothing about Darfur, we think it has to hurt us personally before we do anything about it. We only seem to care if something bad happens to US, or OUR KIDS, or especially if it hurts us at the gas pump, while much of the world suffers some level poverty or hunger that is seem almost nowhere in the US. I say if even a few Iraqis can walk freely outside and moderately say what they like without fear of getting jailed or beheaded, then what was done in Iraq isn't a hundred percent terrible. (Especially if it brings more freedom to women and girls) Peace is a wonderful thing, but not when it comes with people looking over their shoulder afraid whether or not "President" Saddam has a "problem" with them.

I'm certain you wouldn't to live under such conditions yourself or have any of your family live under such a system, or would you? Islam is currently one of the toughest systems in the world to live under and overcome without violent revenge on the part of those who are or were in power. It is a terrible system for girls especially.

Originally posted by teacha: [QB]Let's see, in addition to what Kerry said there was a necessity in many situations during the Rev War to resort to what we used to know as "guerilla warfare", now known as "terrorist attacks", because the colonists were outnumbered and initially at a disadvantage. King George did not start the Revolutionary War, the US did, and for some very good reasons--taxation without representation being a good one, not to mention being forced to provide room and board for often rude British garrisons without being asked, and certainly we cannot ignore the inability of Colonists to run trials and jail criminals, which King George often refused to have prosecuted in England--just to name a FEW good reasons. QB]

The taxation deal was almost as bogus as Bush's reasons for the Bush war on Iraq. The British were not collecting enough to even pay for the security they provided for the colonists on the frontiers and on the ocean trade routes. Those you mention and others are listed on a fine period example of propaganda that we call the Declaration of Independence.

The Bush war is illegal. It violates agreements the U.S. entered into with the U.N. regarding offensive warfare.

<small>[ May 03, 2006, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Abraham ]</small>

"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

Originally posted by abnerman:But will the world one day be a better, safer place because Saddam Hussein was removed from power? Yes.

No, the world is not better off with Hussein removed from power. Iraq might be better off down the road. Then again, the ethnic factions of that region of the world have denied them peace for thousands of years so they will probably continue to hate each other and periodically cleanse one or more groups.

The Sudan and other parts of Africa are in worse condition than Iraq. They don't produce oil of course and Bush had no need to finish what his Dad started.

There is human slavery and trafficking going on in Asia, Africa, India, the Phillipines, the former Soviet states, and even in our own country. No one cares that human beings are being bought and sold for the sex business. Children robbed of childhood.

Korea is the worst dictatorship on the face of the earth and they have the capability to bomb us today. We don't touch them of course because we know that.

Hussein was a dangerous man to his own countrymern. He posed no threat to the rest of us.

Let us not forget our friends the Saudis. Where does the money for terrorism come from? Gee, I wonder Oh wait, they are our friends, they produce what we want, oil.

Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Originally posted by abnerman: [b]But will the world one day be a better, safer place because Saddam Hussein was removed from power? Yes.

No, the world is not better off with Hussein removed from power. Iraq might be better off down the road. Then again, the ethnic factions of that region of the world have denied them peace for thousands of years so they will probably continue to hate each other and periodically cleanse one or more groups.

The Sudan and other parts of Africa are in worse condition than Iraq. They don't produce oil of course and Bush had no need to finish what his Dad started.

There is human slavery and trafficking going on in Asia, Africa, India, the Phillipines, the former Soviet states, and even in our own country. No one cares that human beings are being bought and sold for the sex business. Children robbed of childhood.

Korea is the worst dictatorship on the face of the earth and they have the capability to bomb us today. We don't touch them of course because we know that.

Hussein was a dangerous man to his own countrymern. He posed no threat to the rest of us.

Let us not forget our friends the Saudis. Where does the money for terrorism come from? Gee, I wonder Oh wait, they are our friends, they produce what we want, oil.[/b]

Saddam Hussein said time and time again that the U.S. would "feel his wrath". He said that the U.S. was an "enemy", and that he would make the U.S. "regret" crossing him.

It is a verified fact that he "exterminated" HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of the citizens of his own country openly, and SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE people were "detained" by his government and never heard from again while he was in control of the country (many ending up in the several hundred high-mass graves that have been found in Iraq). VERY Crule forms of torture and murder were common and random in every part of the country by rule of his government... Try to imagine.

Whether it was appropriate by your standards or not, it is a plus for humanity in general that he is not in a position of power.

Your mention of North Korea (Kim Jong Ill) is also a good example of an "atrocity" of a civilized government. Once again, another leader that is known to openly execute citizens of his own country and openly threaten others.

You can call this a "Bush" war if you choose, but please don't let your political affiliation effect your basic human judgement. Saddam Hussein was a "skidmark on the underpants of humanity", regardless of who you voted for.

- I didn't personally vote for Bush, and I don't know that this current war was necessary right now. But I still stand by the fact that -while it may not be good for our country, it IS beneficial for mankind in general.

- I LOVE the fact that MY country does not stand by, while millions of good and innocent people in any other country are subjected to GENOCIDE for being vocal about not seeing eye to eye with their government. (In which case, most of us wouldn't be here now.)

- I LOVE the fact that MY country does not stand by, while millions of good and innocent people in any other country are subjected to GENOCIDE for being vocal about not seeing eye to eye with their government. (In which case, most of us wouldn't be here now.)[/QB]

So how do you explain Darfur? An estimated thousands killed each month with systematic genecide, rape, torture, use of starvation, etc. Looks like your country is standing by.

- I LOVE the fact that MY country does not stand by, while millions of good and innocent people in any other country are subjected to GENOCIDE for being vocal about not seeing eye to eye with their government. (In which case, most of us wouldn't be here now.)

So how do you explain Darfur? An estimated thousands killed each month with systematic genecide, rape, torture, use of starvation, etc. Looks like your country is standing by.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is a figurative Superhero sir. Our government (and I mean our government in general, NOT just the Bush administration) is doing what they can to help.

Is this situation right? No. But can the U.S. make an immediate impact on every single moral issue in the world at the same time? No.

I never said that my country "fixes all of the wrongdoings in the world overnight". What I did say was- "I LOVE the fact that my country does not stand by, while millions of good and innocent people in another country are subjected to GENOCIDE for being vocal about not seeing eye to eye with their own government. (In which case, most of us wouldn't be here now.)"

I stand by my statement. Hopefully the U.S. will be able to help out and contribute more resources to Darfur in the very near future, but at the same time there are also many OTHER situations of the same sort.. we need to be realistic about it.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....

Yes, lets be realistic about this. How long can we go around the world helping people with their problems, before our own problems in this country overwhelm us. I think it is great that for now, we can do this little at a time. But when does it end? Sooner or later our resources will be out "helping" other countries and when/if something happens here we wont be able to help ourselves....

Originally posted by pac-man:Yes, lets be realistic about this. How long can we go around the world helping people with their problems, before our own problems in this country overwhelm us. I think it is great that for now, we can do this little at a time. But when does it end? Sooner or later our resources will be out "helping" other countries and when/if something happens here we wont be able to help ourselves....

I agree.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....